BBC Leadership

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is not lost on anyone in this House that, at a time when other countries who do not necessarily have the UK’s best interests at heart are investing heavily in state-funded propaganda, it is essential that the BBC continues to be a light on the hill for people in times of darkness.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I have long been a champion of the BBC as a UK national institution, but at the last charter review I raised my concern about the prevalence of a metropolitan elite at the heart of the BBC—not just at UK level but in Scotland—who do not always convey that they understand or indeed respect rural or older constituents such as my own. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in order to preserve the BBC as a national institution, this charter review will convey an understanding of people right across the UK, wherever they live?

[Lisa Nandy]

I can, and I will. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that the story of the whole nation has to be told, and the best way to ensure that it is told is to ensure that all of us are involved in telling it, not just some. When we look at the charter review, there will be a particular focus on our nations and regions. I have said previously that, although I absolutely commend the BBC’s work—it has been a leader in the field of moving jobs, programming and skills out of London—I want to see a shift in commissioning power so that, in every nation and region, we decide the story that we tell about ourselves to ourselves as a nation.

Video Games: Consumer Law

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows he cannot intervene, having not been here at the start of Mr Goldsborough’s contribution. That is a House rule.

[Ben Goldsborough]

On that note, Mr Mundell, as I was about to finish: this is about fairness, responsibility, creativity and protecting a cultural legacy of which the United Kingdom should be proud.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that if Members make specific references to games and their various levels, they will share that information directly with Hansard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank all Members who took part in the debate and all the petitioners. Were the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) present, I could have said that every part of the United Kingdom was represented in the Chamber today—but we nearly got there. That shows the benefits of the video game industry to our economy and to our culture.

I was heartened by the Minister’s closing remarks about action to put consumers back at the heart of the process. This is an evolving situation; the video game industry is changing on a daily basis. Ensuring that consumers are at the heart of how the video game industry works in future is a heartening step to hear about. As I said, this issue will not go away. I hope that the Minister and her Department will work closely with all Members who have spoken today to secure the best outcome, which we all want.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I hope that a game out there has the hon. Member for Strangford as a character.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 702074 relating to consumer law and videogames.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I recognise how important the tourism and hospitality sectors are to Suffolk, and I know that my hon. Friend is a strong champion for them and for her area. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport works closely with other Departments, including DESNZ and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the needs of the visitor economy are considered as part of the planning and delivery of large-scale projects. The Government acknowledge concerns that numerous projects may be consented to in one region, and the cumulative impacts of schemes are considered as they move individually through the NSIP regime. I will reflect her comments to MHCLG, but of course such large infrastructure projects are important for the country.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

My constituency has the largest number of wind turbines, either constructed or consented to. Does the Minister share my concern that the Scottish Government continue to override the views of local councils and local communities in consenting to further projects that are to the detriment of the landscape and therefore the local tourist industry?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am sure that the relevant Secretary of State and indeed the Scottish Government have heard it. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Can I ask the hon. Lady to encourage the Church Commissioners to share best practice and their experience of sustaining small churches in rural communities with the Church of Scotland? Sadly, in my constituency we have seen almost the wholesale closure of every small church in a rural area.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Again, I am sorry to hear about the right hon. Member’s constituency and the number of churches that are no longer in operation. I will certainly ensure that whatever best practice the Church Commissioners have can be shared with the Church of Scotland.

Future of Terrestrial Television

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. We are here to debate a hidden threat to a vital service that most of our constituents use every week, and that service is digital terrestrial TV, commonly known as Freeview. So that we are absolutely clear what we are talking about, it is a TV signal that is picked up through the aerial on our roofs. It lets us access broadcast TV channels from the likes of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, including ITV Border in my constituency, STV in the rest of Scotland, and S4C in Wales, as well as over 100 more channels serving a range of interests.

Freeview is a universal service reaching 98.5% of the UK population, including those in remote and rural areas. It is available at no additional cost over and above the licence fee. This is a crucial point: people do not need to pay any additional monthly bills to watch terrestrial TV; all they need is a TV set and an aerial.

The options for watching TV have broadened in the last few years, with the arrival of TV streaming over the internet, or IPTV, as it is known. Many of us enjoy those services, but the fact is that to do so, someone needs a high-speed fixed broadband subscription of sufficient speed and reliability, and not everyone has that.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I know he is acutely aware that many communities that he and I represent in the Scottish borders rely on that television service. At the same time, they do not have access to a high-speed, high quality broadband connection unless they pay significantly for it. Does he agree that we need a commitment from the Government to extend the Freeview service to reassure residents in those communities?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and throughout my speech I will make the point that nobody should be required to pay to watch television. As he said, it is particularly an issue in rural areas, where broadband services can be extremely patchy and speeds highly variable. In more urban and suburban areas, broadband outages are also far from uncommon.

Terrestrial TV has a reliability of close to 99%, which broadband does not. Almost half—45.1%—of broadband customers experienced an outage lasting more than 48 hours in the past year. Indeed, Biggar and the surrounding communities in my constituency experienced an outage of 36 hours. Even as high-speed coverage increases through initiatives such as Project Gigabit, take-up is entirely a different matter.

Research from the consultancy EY estimates that by 2040, some 5.5 million premises will not have taken up a high-speed fixed broadband subscription. Today, some people cannot access fixed broadband because the signal where they live is not fast or reliable enough. Other people simply cannot afford to pay for fixed broadband subscriptions on top of other bills. Millions of people are relying exclusively on mobile for access to the internet. Indeed, data from Citizens Advice suggested that, in 2022 alone, up to 1 million people cancelled their broadband subscription because of the high cost of living.

That is why terrestrial TV remains essential—because it is universal. Indeed, it is the guarantee of universalism in British broadcasting, and that is a priceless asset. For terrestrial TV to provide that bedrock guarantee of universal access, complementing internet streaming, gives the UK the best of both worlds. It is a hybrid model that is so much more robust than putting all our eggs in one basket and relying on a single point of failure.

In addition, the service remains hugely popular and widely used. More than 80% of BBC and ITV content is watched on linear broadcast TV—that is, live on channels such as BBC One or ITV2. Of that viewing, about half—a huge amount—is through terrestrial TV. Indeed, it remains the main way TV content is consumed in the UK.

The reason why we are having this debate today is that despite being a widely used and, in my view, essential service, it is currently under threat of being switched off within a decade. The licences that support terrestrial TV expire in 2034, and the Government have so far not provided a long-term commitment. Yet there is no need to consider switching off terrestrial TV in the mid-2030s, be that for political, technological or financial reasons.

The Government have the opportunity to announce that they support terrestrial TV’s role for the longer term. Nobody, or not very many people, is suggesting that the BBC should be switched off when its current charter concludes in 2027. The projections suggest that terrestrial TV will continue to make a crucial contribution and serve millions of viewers well past that date. However, there are some voices calling for an end to terrestrial TV by the mid-2030s and a transition of all viewing to online streaming only. The BBC director general, Tim Davie, recently said as much, and there are those in parts of the broadcast and telecoms sectors who would certainly welcome it.

Ministers have a decision to make, and I am delighted to see this Minister with us today to respond to the debate. I know she encourages debate and discussion on this issue, and I particularly congratulate her on tackling the issue head-on with the forum that she has convened on the future of TV distribution. I hope that, in her remarks later, she will be able to tell us more about the work of the forum and how it will feed into her decision making, as well as about the timescales she anticipates for that.

I know from my meetings with ITV and Sky that broadcasters are eager to hear from the Minister too. This issue has flown a bit under the radar so far, and any decision could have profound consequences for people across the UK. Indeed, the principal reason why we are having this debate is to raise awareness about the potential end to terrestrial TV, which is too little understood. Recent research from the Digital Poverty Alliance, which I commend to Members, revealed that 69% of the public were completely unaware that the future of terrestrial TV was under threat at all, and 73% of people polled believed that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035.

That is really my message today—any talk about a switch-off of terrestrial TV in the 2030s is completely premature and unrealistic. The Government have the opportunity to take that possibility off the table and give certainty for the service into the 2040s. We could use various analogies to exemplify the point about a hybrid model of delivery being best. I would make the analogy with the debate about access to cash, on which I have long campaigned. The creeping withdrawal of banks and free cashpoints, especially from smaller towns and more rural settings, means that we are sleepwalking to a cashless society. Many people value the ability to make cashless transactions, and no doubt the convenience of digital payments will continue to expand, but the fact is that many people still want to be able to access cash, and the Government rightly stepped in to provide a guarantee that cash would remain available.

Exactly the same argument applies in respect of terrestrial TV. Indeed, it is an even stronger argument, because the viewing rates for terrestrial TV are far higher than the rates of use of cash. Even as more of us stream more content online, it is terrestrial TV that guarantees universal access and that is there when fixed broadband fails. The same research I cited earlier revealed that 70% of the public feel reassured by knowing that terrestrial TV is available as a fall-back option, even if they do not use it on a daily basis.

I am sure that we will hear during the debate about a range of factors that Ministers need to consider as they make decisions about the future of terrestrial TV. What cannot be denied is that any move to switch it off would hit the most vulnerable people the hardest, including those struggling with the cost of living, many older people, people living with disabilities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) highlighted, those in remote, rural and island communities. They all rely on terrestrial TV to stay connected and, in many cases, do not have the choice of simply switching to streaming.

Debates about broadcasting are often dominated by perspectives from what might be called a media elite, by which I mean those who tend to be in and of the big cities—London, but not just London—and a bit more middle class and a little younger. That is no criticism of those individuals, but we have to be aware that not everyone sees things from their perspective, and we, as legislators, need to be focused on ensuring that we serve the whole country, including those whose lives are quite different. When the Minister is being told by broadcasters and others that the direction of travel is away from terrestrial TV, cash payments or many other things, I urge her to bear in mind, as I am sure she will, that so many of the people we represent see things differently.

Some may argue that we just need to accept that more and more services are moving online. Some in the industry have even suggested that the threat of losing access to TV is a good way of forcing people who are not online to get online. However, as Elizabeth Anderson, the chief executive officer of the Digital Poverty Alliance, has said:

“What would be unconscionable…is to use any threat of the removal of the terrestrial TV service as a coercive stick with which to force people to take on new and unwelcome financial burdens simply to continue being connected to shared televisual experiences. The millions of people who watch terrestrial TV every day as their preferred mode of TV viewing deserve more respect than to be treated in that way.”

It is simply a fact that a large category of people who today enjoy accessing TV through the terrestrial service would be excluded if the service were switched off in the 2030s.

Let me be clear: guaranteeing the long-term future of terrestrial TV is by no means anti-digital, as some may claim. In fact, protecting the future of terrestrial TV is what makes our media industry one of the most digitally diverse globally. Losing terrestrial TV could damage the viability of UK-wide broadcast networks, which are relied on by a range of other sectors, including radio.

I expect that the Minister will refer to the financial viability of the service. In fact, terrestrial TV represents a very modest cost to broadcasters right now—less than 3% of the licence fee to fund a universal service. Indeed, research by the consultancy EY indicates that the costs of terrestrial TV could be reduced substantially in the future if it has the certainty of a longer life span to justify investment.

The financial implications of any switch-off also need to be factored in. As I have already explained, there would be new costs for viewers who would need to take out high- speed fixed broadband subscriptions; on average, the cost for them would be an extra £214 a year. It would also mean new costs for the Government, who would potentially have to fund the upgrades necessary to make the internet infrastructure suitable for a huge surge in demand. EY estimates that that cost would be £1 billion annually as an ongoing—indeed, permanent—subsidy. In reality, there would be a shift in the cost burden of TV distribution, away from the broadcasters and on to the shoulders of viewers and taxpayers. As things stand, we would lose a vital service and we would all pay more for less. Clearly, that looks like a good deal for the BBC and other broadcasters; what is less clear is whether it would be a good deal for my constituents and those of other MPs.

Broadcasters should be careful what they wish for. As I have already said, the reality is that only a tiny percentage of the licence fee goes on paying for terrestrial TV. For the price of the licence fee, the BBC guarantees universal, free-to-air access to broadcast TV content to virtually everyone in the UK. Without that universality, it might be a lot harder to make the case for the licence fee as a flat tax on TV ownership.

I say again that we should get some clarity from the Government and that the possibility of losing terrestrial TV in the next decade should be taken off the table. Instead, let us give viewers the guarantee of universal access to Great British broadcasting through the best-of-both-worlds model that we have today, retaining it well into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I commit to concluding my remarks when the bell tolls.

I particularly thank the Minister for getting in a very full response before we have to conclude proceedings. It was very telling that when she read out the research that has been conducted, it was entirely in tune with what hon. Members had been saying throughout the debate—about the vulnerable, those who are remote and rural, and those who do not have good access to broadband.

While I would never want to characterise my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) as a member of the media elite, and I am sure that Sky Glass is an excellent product, I must point out that many of my constituents are unable, either practically or financially, to access it. That is very much what this debate is about: we have to focus on the people who are not in a position to do that.

The Minister can look back at the digital switchover, which was trialled in my own constituency a long time ago —the first switchover took place there. People who switched from analogue to digital were not then asked to pay a broadband subscription. The television service that they had was essentially changed, but they were not asked to pay anything for that to happen. Although the exercise was well managed, the analogy is not quite complete.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was actually the case that they were required to pay something. They had to purchase a set-top box, but the Government offered support to those who could not afford one. Perhaps that is an analogy we can follow in the future.

[David Mundell]

Well, we could go into the detail, because not everybody required a set-top box, but we are not going down that route. What we can agree is that, when that change was made, there was a huge intervention to allow it to take place smoothly.

I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) emphasised how much television helps wellbeing and reduces loneliness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) hit the nail on the head when she said that for many people, the television in the corner is a companion. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made very good points about the infrastructure behind television services and supporting local retailers.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) set out the practical issues in relation to the transmitter network. I have seen the transmitter in his constituency many times—it is often a beacon on a dark night in central Scotland—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to visit it. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) set out many of the same issues as I face in my large rural constituency. We must keep our focus on the people living in such areas.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) asked very clearly, “Who is going to pay for the switchover?” That, too, is very important. The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), bringing to bear his experience, made really important points, particularly about scheduling and all the things that terrestrial television brings as the core of the network.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Is the right hon. Member happy for me to put the Question, because a vote is about to be held?

[David Mundell]

Well, I would not want to leave without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his important contribution. Thank you, Mr Twigg.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is a good representative for the people of Harlow. In his constituency, St Mary Magdalene church runs a vibrant Sunday school and mothers’ union, with lots of events and activities for all the community. St Stephen’s church runs a parent and toddler group while also supporting local care homes. St Paul’s and St Mary’s churches partner with the local food bank and run a Bounty club with the Michael Roberts Charitable Trust, offering good, healthy food at a low cost.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

With the closure of many churches in rural communities in England and in Scotland, too, are the commissioners concerned that people living in rural areas, particularly those on low incomes, might not be able to access worship within easy reach of their own communities?

[Marsha De Cordova]

The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. The Church values all its rural communities, and that is why we have so many different projects to ensure that places of worship not only exist, but operate as a community hub to ensure that people in those local areas have places to go, whether that is for worship, a local food bank, or a mother and baby group.

Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I look forward to marking VE Day on Thursday in the Royal Burgh of Sanquhar, which is part of Upper Nithsdale’s proud military heritage, at the beacon to be lit at Hass hill in Lockerbie, and at a parade in Dumfries on Saturday. What Ministers and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, might not know is that the end of the war in Europe was first announced in Dumfries, because the Provost Fyfe jumped the gun and announced it at 12 pm. Local newspaper reports are clear that by the time Churchill made the official announcement at 3 pm—despite the pouring rain—the party was well under way in Dumfries.

I want to reference two individuals who are strongly related to the war but at different ends of the spectrum. The first is Air Chief Marshal Lord Hugh Dowding, who was born in Moffat. Lord Dowding is the man who masterminded the battle of Britain, and it is generally accepted that he played a crucial role in ensuring that Hitler’s Operation Sea Lion—the proposal to invade this island—did not succeed. He was a tactical genius who knew how to manage the RAF resource and ensured there were detailed preparations for the air defences.

The other person is David Shankland MBE. He was a great character in my local community when I was growing up. Davie, like a lot of people, was involved in an incident that was not an attack by the enemy but a ship carrying munitions that blew up in Bombay harbour. That ship—the SS Fort Stikine—blew up and took down the ship that Davie was on, El Hind, as well. About 1,300 people perished in that incident, and Davie was one of only six people on his vessel to survive. He took that as a message that he needed to dedicate the rest of his life to public service, and that is what he did. When he was demobbed, he became a nurse. He was the first male state-registered nurse in the south of Scotland, and he went on to be a distinguished nurse tutor. That is the sort of impact the war had: people going through it and making it a positive experience.

I also want to mention my mother Dorah. She was 13 when the war began, but as soon as she was 18 in 1944, she volunteered and became an Army cook, going from rural south Scotland to Norfolk. Her abiding memory of the war was D-day. Having cooked the night before for a full and overflowing canteen, she said she went in the next morning and there were only four old men to serve. My aunt, who remained in the south of Scotland, had to work on the farm. She was 19 and worked throughout the war as a farm labourer because, as others have referenced, there just were not men to do that. We pay tribute to those people, even if they did not have a formal role.

The final point, which I am pleased that a number of Members have raised, is VJ Day. The King’s Own Scottish Borderers from the south of Scotland were heavily involved in the eastern campaign. People never really felt that they got the acknowledgment they deserved, because they felt that the war had ended and yet it had not.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

BBC: Funding

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree. Yesterday, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the director general and the deputy director for news, Jonathan Munro, on this subject. He talked about the way the World Service provides its core language services and can also provide additional coverage quickly. Syria is a good example of where it is doing that. That is an extremely important role for the BBC, and one that I do not think could be funded in any way other than through public money. The BBC make a good case as to why the licence fee may no longer be appropriate, which we also need to consider.

There are a large number of Members present in the Chamber, so I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that I have raised one or two questions that we will need to debate thoroughly over the course of the couple of years that lie ahead for the charter renewal.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I do not intend to set a time limit, but if Members could stick to five or six minutes, everybody should get to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing the debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who was supported by the Musicians’ Union, and I am the son of a videotape editor for the BBC, so I spent much of my childhood on the cutting room floor of Pebble Mill in the west midlands.

We hear about bias from all political parties and all sides. I heard from my Liberal Democrat colleagues earlier today about their frustration that the leader of the Reform party has appeared on the BBC far more times than any Liberal Democrats have. I heard the concern about trust expressed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), a former Minister, but several high-profile leaders of the BBC are former Conservative members or advisers. Many people who worked for the BBC are now prominent Conservatives on my local council.

We are talking about the funding of the BBC. We will all be unhappy with its output at some stage, yet the public still put it higher than most news outlets and other broadcasters. On the issue of funding the organisation, which is still one of the best in the world, does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that if we put a subscription process in place, not everybody would take it up, which would drive up the subscription fee, and then the BBC would have an even bigger funding problem?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I will regard that as your speech, Mr Bloore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. A number of criticisms of the BBC have been expressed, and I have my own criticisms; nevertheless, everybody recognises the value that the BBC brings to the UK and our society, and the importance of ensuring that it continues to play that important role. But there is a problem: the current model is looking harder and harder to sustain. I therefore suspect that we will continue to debate this issue over the coming weeks and years during the charter renewal process. I look forward to continuing my discussion with the Minister and others. I thank everybody for their contributions and join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the Minister and all others in wishing all Members a very happy Christmas.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned BBC Parliament, on which this debate will appear. I understand that it is available over Christmas, when it shows highlights from parliamentary proceedings—of which I am sure this debate will be part.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I look forward to the increase as well.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

When mobile providers started to turn off the 2G and 3G networks earlier this year, we were told that it would have no impact on existing services, but the experience in my constituency is the contrary, particularly along the M74 motorway network. Will Ministers investigate the impact of the switch-off to date, and ensure that necessary improvements are made so that we have a full network across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Chris Bryant]

I think this is a hangover from yesterday’s questions on telecoms, but the right hon. Member makes a very good point. One of the things that keeps me awake at night is worrying about what will happen to the transition for people with telecare devices, which rely on the old public switched telephone network. We are keen to have a safe transition. Exactly the same issues apply to 2G and 3G. I will happily meet with him, if that would help.